Perdita Durango (1997)
Directed by: Álex de la Iglesia

AdvancedFilesizeRegulation



Plot Outline: Perdita Durango meets Romeo Dolorosa, a criminal who is some sort of priest of a satanic cult and keeps crossing the Mexican-US border safely. He's asked to do a job for crime boss Santos, involving the traffic of human foetuses for the cosmetic industry. Meanwhile, he needs to make a sacrifice to please his gods and a young American couple comes in his and Perdita's way. They are being followed by an unlucky DEA agent, the father of the kidnapped girl, an old partner which Romeo double-crossed and the previous boss to whom he owes a lot of money. He doesn't like what he reads in the cards...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119879/









AVI File Details
========================================
Name.........: Perdita.Durango.1997.DVDrip.Xvid-Slayer.avi
Filesize.....: 1,513 MB (or 1,549,326 KB or 1,586,509,824 bytes)
Runtime......: 01:58:49 (178,228 fr)
Video Codec..: XviD
Video Bitrate: 1582 kb/s
Audio Codec..: ac3 (0x2000) Dolby Laboratories, Inc
Audio Bitrate: 192 kb/s (96/ch, stereo) CBR
Frame Size...: 704x528 (1.33:1) [=4:3]

ed2k: Perdita.Durango.1997.DVDrip.Xvid-Slayer.avi  [1.48 Gb] [Stats]

Fullscreen?! Pan & Scan or open matte?

Yes, fullscreen. It's the DVD, which is 4:3. I'm not sure whether it is open matte or pan&scan. How can I see that on the DVD?

Which DVD release is it?

Maybe this one?



If so, it's censored as well:

No, my DVD is a Dutch R2, from Indies. Dutch releases usually aren't censored.

I often can't find my DVDs on the internet (especially dvdcompare.net often doesn't have my versions), but I did find an image of the cover, which I used for the first post.

Still I'd like to know how I can find out whether it's pan & scan or open matte.

This is your best rip yet.

*CLICK* in a few days

Santo disguse is great

Best way to find out is a comparison with WS source.

Hehe, I'm in the dark a bit too.

I dont know what an open matte or a pan/scan is. I know full screen & wide screen.

Guessing here, but is pan/scan zoomed on the source like for example star wars 4 & open matte is where just the edges of a widescreen have been chopped off?

OK, I read that, but how can I see in the film which one it is? I don't see any microphones or other equipment, but I'm sure that's no proof of being it open matte, right?

Thanks for the link elguaxo.

I had them the wrong way round

Nope, only way to be sure is a comparison, I'm afraid.

IMDb says it was shot in Super 35, which would cut off a large amount of picture information from the bottom and a smaller portion from the top to create the intended 2.35 ratio.

Looking at the screen grabs above that looks about right. So this rip has extra picture information, not less.

I'm not so sure, simply cause if you're right about this version, her cleavage would disappear.

well... the nipples of Kristanna Loken disappeared on T3 for the same reason

Maybe this Dutch version is the same as the one released in Australia?...




http://www.refused-classification.com/Films_PQ.htm

thanks!!! I have this for some reason in spanish only, so it'll be nice replace

awesome rip, I was just thinking about this movie today...actually expecting to see your rip making it to HHAH

as for the AR and rating issues... I'm usually more concerned about censorship over AR, meaning I'd take a pan&scan uncut (or a VHS rip if you will) over a stunning widescreen cut rip anytime. But when the movie is originally in cinemascope, 2.35:1... that's tough to scan hopefully screenshots of the wide version will appear so we can be sure rather this is a pan&scan or open matte.

Some of the screenshots scream pan&scan, but I can be totally wrong obviously, being open matte in context they would make sense in a different way of composition, it's just that some of those scenes look like they could benefit from information on the sides and more background picture...in order to look more like a film shot in 2.35:1 and less a 1.33:1 feature for example.

Hope it's uncut btw, but I'd take either good news, AR or rating.

The compositions look very much like Super 35 to me, the focus of each shot seems to be just above the half way line (face, head, head and shoulders etc.) and there's quite a bit of unnecessary information in the bottom half.

Looking at these screengrabs from a widescreen DVD it looks quite tightly framed around the faces, quite different from the shots above.

Also, I found this page with a detailed list of the various cuts made to the film.